Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards - Value of Information (CHEERS-VOI): Explanation and Elaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Although the ISPOR Value of Information (VOI) Task Force's reports outline VOI concepts and provide good-practice recommendations, there is no guidance for reporting VOI analyses. VOI analyses are usually performed alongside economic evaluations for which the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Statement provides reporting guidelines. Thus, we developed the CHEERS-VOI checklist to provide reporting guidance and checklist to support the transparent, reproducible, and high-quality reporting of VOI analyses. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review generated a list of 26 candidate reporting items. These candidate items underwent a Delphi procedure with Delphi participants through 3 survey rounds. Participants rated each item on a 9-point Likert scale to indicate its relevance when reporting the minimal, essential information about VOI methods and provided comments. The Delphi results were reviewed at 2-day consensus meetings and the checklist was finalized using anonymous voting. RESULTS: We had 30, 25, and 24 Delphi respondents in rounds 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After incorporating revisions recommended by the Delphi participants, all 26 candidate items proceeded to the 2-day consensus meetings. The final CHEERS-VOI checklist includes all CHEERS items, but 7 items require elaboration when reporting VOI. Further, 6 new items were added to report information relevant only to VOI (eg, VOI methods applied). CONCLUSIONS: The CHEERS-VOI checklist should be used when a VOI analysis is performed alongside economic evaluations. The CHEERS-VOI checklist will help decision makers, analysts and peer reviewers in the assessment and interpretation of VOI analyses and thereby increase transparency and rigor in decision making.

A Guide to Selecting Flexible Survival Models to Inform Economic Evaluations of Cancer Immunotherapies.

OBJECTIVES: Parametric models are routinely used to estimate the benefit of cancer drugs beyond trial follow-up. The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors has challenged this paradigm, and emerging evidence suggests that more flexible survival models, which can better capture the shapes of complex hazard functions, might be needed for these interventions. Nevertheless, there is a need for an algorithm to help analysts decide whether flexible models are required and, if so, which should be chosen for testing. This position article has been produced to bridge this gap. METHODS: A virtual advisory board comprising 7 international experts with in-depth knowledge of survival analysis and health technology assessment was held in summer 2021. The experts discussed 24 questions across 6 topics: the current survival model selection procedure, data maturity, heterogeneity of treatment effect, cure and mortality, external evidence, and additions to existing guidelines. Their responses culminated in an algorithm to inform selection of flexible survival models. RESULTS: The algorithm consists of 8 steps and 4 questions. Key elements include the systematic identification of relevant external data, using clinical expert input at multiple points in the selection process, considering the future and the observed hazard functions, assessing the potential for long-term survivorship, and presenting results from all plausible models. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm provides a systematic, evidence-based approach to justify the selection of survival extrapolation models for cancer immunotherapies. If followed, it should reduce the risk of selecting inappropriate models, partially addressing a key area of uncertainty in the economic evaluation of these agents.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. METHODS: The joint Task Force consisted of 15 members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to 2 rounds of peer review. RESULTS: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by 6 phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Redefining Health Technology Assessment: A Comment on "The New Definition of Health Technology Assessment: A Milestone in International Collaboration".

A new definition of health technology assessment (HTA), developed by an International Joint Task Group claims to be a "milestone," "an historic achievement," and "a cornerstone reference"-claims that we think to be unjustified. We too favor clear definitions, especially when confusion abounds. However, the Task Group seems to have developed a definition without the help of usual conventions regarding definitions and, in our view, through an ill-described process. A definition ought to differentiate the entity defined from other entities. This one fails to do so. It states traits that are true of HTA (e.g., that is interdisciplinary) but HTA is not alone in this. There are other concerns: examples of HTA's use are embodied in the definition, precluding other uses; the adjectives used, although generally true of HTA, are not differentiating features; and attributing to HTA specific purposes, thereby excluding other purposes. We have sympathy for these purposes but cannot consider them HTA's only purposes or even, its main purpose. A newcomer to HTA, on reading this definition, will have no idea of HTA's true potential. These numerous failings, we feel, send all the wrong signals, and could ultimately weaken, rather than strengthen perceptions of HTA's legitimacy and objectivity. The production of a good definition remains, therefore, a work in progress.

Designing and Implementing Deliberative Processes for Health Technology Assessment: A Good Practices Report of a Joint HTAi/ISPOR Task Force.

OBJECTIVES: Deliberative processes for health technology assessment (HTA) are intended to facilitate participatory decision making, using discussion and open dialogue between stakeholders. Increasing attention is being given to deliberative processes, but guidance is lacking for those who wish to design or use them. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) and ISPOR-The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research initiated a joint Task Force to address this gap. METHODS: The joint Task Force consisted of fifteen members with different backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise relevant to the field. It developed guidance and a checklist for deliberative processes for HTA. The guidance builds upon the few, existing initiatives in the field, as well as input from the HTA community following an established consultation plan. In addition, the guidance was subject to two rounds of peer review. RESULTS: A deliberative process for HTA consists of procedures, activities, and events that support the informed and critical examination of an issue and the weighing of arguments and evidence to guide a subsequent decision. Guidance and an accompanying checklist are provided for (i) developing the governance and structure of an HTA program and (ii) informing how the various stages of an HTA process might be managed using deliberation. CONCLUSIONS: The guidance and the checklist contain a series of questions, grouped by six phases of a model deliberative process. They are offered as practical tools for those wishing to establish or improve deliberative processes for HTA that are fit for local contexts. The tools can also be used for independent scrutiny of deliberative processes.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Value assessment of oncology drugs using a weighted criterion-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the rising cost of anticancer therapy has motivated efforts to quantify the overall value of new cancer treatments. Multicriteria decision analysis offers a novel approach to incorporate multiple criteria and perspectives into value assessment. METHODS: The authors recruited a diverse, multistakeholder group who identified and weighted key criteria to establish the drug assessment framework (DAF). Construct validity assessed the degree to which DAF scores were associated with past pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) funding recommendations and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS; version 1.1) scores. RESULTS: The final DAF included 10 criteria: overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, toxicity, unmet need, equity, feasibility, disease severity, and caregiver well-being. The first 5 clinical benefit criteria represent approximately 64% of the total weight. DAF scores ranged from 0 to 300, reflecting both the expected impact of the drug and the quality of supporting evidence. When the DAF was applied to the last 60 drugs (with reviewers blinded) reviewed by pCODR (2015-2018), those drugs with positive pCODR funding recommendations were found to have higher DAF scores compared with drugs not recommended (103 vs 63; Student t test P = .0007). DAF clinical benefit criteria mildly correlated with ESMO-MCBS scores (correlation coefficient, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.009-0.59). Sensitivity analyses that varied the criteria scores did not change the results. CONCLUSIONS: Using a structured and explicit approach, a criterion-based valuation framework was designed to provide a transparent and consistent method with which to value and prioritize cancer drugs to facilitate the delivery of affordable cancer care.

Matching-adjusted comparison of oral corticosteroid reduction in asthma: Systematic review of biologics.

BACKGROUND: Oral corticosteroid (OCS) treatment for severe asthma is associated with substantial disease burden. Thus, OCS dosage reduction is desirable. Relative efficacy of biologics in reducing OCS treatment for severe, uncontrolled asthma is not fully characterized. OBJECTIVE: We performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to assess the relative effects on OCS treatment reduction of three biologic asthma treatments. METHODS: In MAIC of benralizumab vs. mepolizumab and vs. dupilumab, patient-level data from the Phase III benralizumab OCS-sparing trial, ZONDA, were weighted to match treatment effect-modifying patient characteristics in comparator trials. RESULTS: After matching adjustment, mean difference between benralizumab and mepolizumab for OCS reduction was 6.08% (95% CI -22.22-34.38; P = .67) by week 24, and odds ratio of OCS elimination was 2.32 (95% CI 0.48-11.15; P = .29). A trend in annual asthma exacerbation rate reduction favouring benralizumab over mepolizumab was observed, although it was not statistically significant (rate ratio [RR] = 0.56 [95% CI 0.28-1.13; P = .11]). Mean difference between benralizumab and dupilumab for OCS reduction was -0.71% (95% CI -20.56-19.15; P = .94), and odds ratio of OCS elimination was 2.26 (95% CI 0.52-9.84; P = .28). A non-significant trend in annual asthma exacerbation rate reduction favouring benralizumab over dupilumab was observed (RR = 0.50 [95% CI 0.20-1.28; P = .15]). Effective sample size was 49% (72 vs. 148) and 25% (36 vs. 142) of original sample size for MAIC of benralizumab vs. mepolizumab and benralizumab vs. dupilumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Following patient baseline characteristics matching across clinical trials, benralizumab demonstrated efficacy comparable to mepolizumab and dupilumab for OCS dosage reduction, OCS elimination, and annual exacerbation rate reduction. Comparatively low effective sample sizes indicated substantial differences for patient populations between ZONDA and mepolizumab and dupilumab trials.

Variability in aneurysm sac regression after endovascular aneurysm repair based on a comprehensive registry of patients in Eastern Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Although the absence of aneurysm-related mortality, postimplantation rupture, and reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is desirable, it may not necessarily reflect successful aneurysm sac exclusion. Sac regression may be a more sensitive marker for EVAR success and may be influenced by factors beyond the presence or absence of an endoleak. The objective of this study is to determine the rate of overall long-term sac regression after EVAR and the influence of nonanatomic factors, and endograft devices used at our center. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all EVARs performed for intact and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) at a university teaching hospital. Preoperative, operative, and follow-up data were collected using clinical and radiologic institutional databases. Preoperative and post-EVAR sac diameters were determined by a blinded observer in accordance with Society for Vascular Surgery guidelines. Absolute and relative sac regression was determined at the following intervals: 0 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, 12 to 18 months, 18 months to 2 years, 2 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, and more than 10 years. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2015, 1060 patients underwent EVAR for an AAA at the Ottawa Hospital. Procedures were performed using a total of nine unique endograft devices, with five devices (Cook Zenith, n = 398; Medtronic Endurant, n = 375; Medtronic Talent, n = 183; Cook Zenith LP, n = 52; and Terumo Anaconda, n = 23) used in 97% of the procedures. The mean preoperative AAA diameter was 61.2 mm, with no detectable differences between endograft devices with respect to age, preoperative AAA diameter, or rupture diagnosis. Overall mean sac regression increased from -1.3 mm at 6 months, to -14.9 mm beyond 10 years. The majority of sac regression was achieved within 2 years. Only 90 of the 1060 patients (8.5%) experienced sac expansion of greater than 5 mm at some point during their follow-up period. Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed statistically significant device-specific variability in sac regression rates, even in the absence of an endoleak. Cox proportional hazard modeling demonstrated that age less than 75 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; P = .001), female sex (HR, 1.4; P = .003), absence of type I endoleak (HR, 4.6; P < .0001), AAA greater than 70 mm (HR, 1.6; P < .0001), and both the Zenith (HR, 2.0; P < .0001) and Endurant (HR, 1.7; P = .001) devices were associated with shorter time to more than 5 mm sac regression. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a pattern of sac diameter change after EVAR, with the majority of sac regression occurring within the first 2 years. Variability in sac regression was influenced by nonanatomic variables including age, sex, original AAA diameter, and specific endograft device, even after controlling for the presence or absence of an endoleak. The biophysical relationship between specific endograft design and materials, and sac regression is yet to be determined.

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA.

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.

Use of Real-World Data Sources for Canadian Drug Pricing and Reimbursement Decisions: Stakeholder Views and Lessons for Other Countries.

BACKGROUND: Canada has a long history of the use of clinical evidence to support healthcare decision making. Given improvements in data holdings and analytic capacity in Canada and stakeholder interest, the purpose of this study is to reflect on perceptions of the value of real-world evidence in pricing and reimbursement decisions, barriers to its optimal use in pricing and reimbursement, current initiatives that may lead to its increased use, and what role the pharmaceutical industry may play in this.Methods/ResultsTo capture stakeholder perceptions, ninety-one participants identified as key stakeholders were identified according to background roles and geography and invited to participate in four round table discussions conducted under Chatham House rule. Important themes emerging from these discussions included: (i) the need to understand what "real world" evidence means; (ii) barriers to using real world evidence from differences in access, governance, inter-operability, system structures, expertise, and quality across Canadian health systems; (iii) differing views on industry's role. CONCLUSIONS: The use of real-world data in Canada to inform pricing and reimbursement decisions is far from routine but nascent and slowly increasing. Barriers, including interoperability concerns, may also apply to other federated health systems that need to focus on the networking of healthcare administrative data across provincial jurisdictional boundaries. There also appears to be a desire to see better use of pragmatic trials linked to these administrative data sets. Emerging initiatives are under way to use real world evidence more broadly, and include identification of common data elements and approaches to networking data.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of benralizumab versus interleukin-5 inhibitors for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review.

Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor α-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody that directly depletes eosinophils. Its relative efficacy versus other IL-5-targeted treatments for patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma is not yet fully characterised.We performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of benralizumab versus mepolizumab and reslizumab. Trials were selected through systematic review and evaluation of trial methods. Benralizumab patient-level data were weighted to match treatment-effect-modifying patient characteristics of comparator trials before indirect efficacy comparisons.After matching adjustment, benralizumab and mepolizumab reduced exacerbations versus placebo by 52% and 49%, respectively (rate ratio [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13; n=1524) and reduced the rate of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation/emergency department visit by 52% and 52%, respectively (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.57-1.75; n=1524). Benralizumab and mepolizumab similarly improved pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s at 32 weeks (difference 0.03 L, 95% CI -0.06-0.12; n=1443). Benralizumab and reslizumab patient populations were too dissimilar to generate a sufficient effective sample size to produce a reliable estimate for MAIC.MAIC is a robust way to indirectly compare treatment efficacies from trials with heterogeneous patient populations. When baseline patient characteristics were matched across asthma trials, benralizumab and mepolizumab yielded similar efficacy.

CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS?

OBJECTIVES: Health technology assessment (HTA) has to innovate to best support changing health system environments and to help provide access to valuable innovation under fiscal constraint. METHODS: Issues associated with changing HTA paradigms were identified through scoping and explored through deliberation at a meeting of industry and HTA leaders. RESULTS: Five broad areas of change (engagement, scientific dialogue, research prioritization, adaptive approaches, and real world data) were identified. The meeting focused on two themes derived from these: re-thinking scientific dialogue and multi-stakeholder engagement, and re-thinking value, affordability, and access. Earlier and ongoing engagement to steer the innovation process and help achieve appropriate use across the technology lifecycle was perceived as important but would be resource intensive and would require priority setting. Patients need to be involved throughout, and particularly at the early stages. Further discussion is needed on the type of body best suited to convening the dialogue required. There was agreement that HTA must continue to assess value, but views differed on the role that HTA should play in assessing affordability and on appropriate responses to challenges around affordability. Enhanced horizon scanning could play an important role in preparing for significant future investments. CONCLUSIONS: Early and ongoing multi-stakeholder engagement and revisiting approaches to valuing innovation are required. Questions remain as to the most appropriate role for HTA bodies. Changing HTA paradigms extend HTA's traditional remit of being responsive to decision-makers demands to being more proactive and considering whole system value.

CHANGING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PARADIGMS?-ERRATUM.

In Husereau et al., the affiliation for Laura Sampietro-Colom was listed as "Hospital Clinic". It should have instead been listed as, "Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain".